London's latest Web3 launchpad. Sounds fantastic, right? More funding, more mentorship, more... gatekeeping? While the headlines tout the UK's ambition to be a global blockchain hub, backed by names like Animoca Brands and Coinbase, I can't help but wonder: who really gets a seat at this table?

The siren song of seed investment and regulatory clearance is hard to resist. The devil, as always, is in the details. The details, my friends, whisper of a gilded cage, potentially shutting out the very innovators Web3 claims to champion.

Is "Innovation" a Western Echo Chamber?

As an example, the program focuses on DeFi, blockchain gaming, Web3 infrastructure, and decentralized social platforms. All valid, lucrative areas, sure. But what about the other creators? The ones creating blockchain solutions for ag supply chains in Southeast Asia? The artists NFT-ing indigenous languages so that, one day, we can all learn from them. Just because their innovations don’t fit exactly into a Silicon Valley-esque mold, does that make them less innovative?

Having spent time in Southeast Asia, I can attest to the cutting-edge work emerging from the region. Real projects We met real projects deploying blockchain to empower marginalized communities. They fight against corruption and build their own decentralized finance alternatives to suit their unique circumstances. These are not mere carbon copies of Western ideas. One, they’re born from the different cultural context, from a unique challenge.

Consider, for example, a cooperative in the Philippines employing NFTs to support the transition to sustainable fishing. Or a Congolese creative working on a biodata app for improving public health outcomes. These select projects are a small glimpse of what Web3 can truly be – tooled to solve tangible, real-world issues. These projects place social impact and community empowerment at their core, prioritizing a need for community justice over profit. Would they still meet the definition of “high-growth” to qualify as London’s launchpad? I have my doubts.

This isn’t just about sour grapes. It's about the very soul of Web3. If we allow established hubs to dictate what "innovation" looks like, we risk creating a monoculture, stifling the diverse voices that should be shaping this decentralized future.

MVP or Missing Vital Perspectives?

The criteria used for selection require a “live MVP” and “technical capacity.” Fine, on paper. What does this actually mean? It just means that projects that have access to the resources, to the developers, to the already-established networks, automatically have a huge advantage. What about the artist with a killer creative vision who can borderline-program, but not all the way? District Community Organizer Emilie Eaves has a big idea – to create a decentralized, democratic, cooperative. Here’s their bind — without the money to design a killer prototype.

Let's be honest: building a "live MVP" costs money. It requires time. It demands a certain level of privilege. And while the program offers mentorship, I question whether that mentorship will truly address the systemic disadvantages faced by creators from underrepresented regions. Are they going to grasp the cultural nuances, the language barriers, the regulatory hurdles that these humans experience on a day-to-day basis? Or will they just force them to adapt to a Westernized one-size-fits-all model of success?

I just remember speaking to a Malaysian artist. He was very keen to be the first to release an NFT collection that featured the richness of traditional batik art. Despite her background, she found it difficult to navigate smart contracts and gas fees. Not for lack of talent or lack of vision, but simply because she didn’t have the same access to resources that her Western peers did. Her project—the most vibrant, culturally-rich, artistically-merit-filled project—could still be passed up in the end for technical disconnects. Is this really the fate we wish to bestow upon Web3? A dystopia in which just the privileged few are able to enjoy?

This emphasis on technical prowess seems dangerously close to rewarding the means rather than the end. Let’s focus on the benefit of these projects. Instead, we should be looking at their capacity to effect meaningful change for the better—not simply how well they can construct a shiny-looking MVP.

Global Gateway or Global Gatekeeper?

While it isn’t yet, London’s Web3 launchpad could be a potent force for good. That would make it much more accessible to the adventure community, democratizing access to funding and mentorship, and empowering creators from all corners of the globe. But only if it intentionally works to undo its built-in prejudices.

UK-government trumpets this “clear digital-asset framework” as a competitive advantage. As the saying goes, a framework is only as good as its application. If that framework’s to support the old power structures, it’s not going to work. Without genuine innovation and growth, it will be doomed to underperform.

  • Actively seek out diverse talent: This means going beyond the usual tech conferences and engaging with communities in emerging markets.
  • Broaden the definition of "innovation": Recognize the value of projects that address social impact and cultural preservation, not just those focused on pure financial gain.
  • Provide targeted support: Offer mentorship and resources tailored to the specific needs of underrepresented groups.
  • Re-evaluate the "live MVP" requirement: Consider alternative ways to assess the potential of early-stage projects.

We need to ask ourselves: is London building a truly decentralized ecosystem, or simply consolidating its power as another centralized hub? Honestly, I worry that what our collective answer turns out to be will dictate the course for Web3’s future. Will it live up to its equity and inclusion promise, or will it further close the door on the world’s most forgotten voices? The stakes are incredibly high, and the time to act could not be more urgent. Let’s not make awe for big investment numbers keep us from seeing the exclusion that waits just under the surface. If we don’t, Web3 will become a self-fulfilling prophecy of Western dominance. As we all know, good intentions will not be sufficient. We need to adopt a true global mindset.

We need to ask ourselves: is London building a truly decentralized ecosystem, or simply consolidating its power as another centralized hub? The answer, I fear, will determine whether Web3 lives up to its promise of a more equitable and inclusive future, or becomes just another closed door for the forgotten voices of the world. The stakes are high, and the time to act is now. Let’s not allow awe for investment numbers blind us to the potential exclusion that lurks beneath the surface. Let's ensure Web3 doesn't become a self-fulfilling prophecy of Western dominance, fueled by good intentions and a lack of genuine global perspective.